/-/Dm</ 



\°i 



copy 2 



029 826 170 



4 # 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



HD 1724 
1911 
Copy 2 



A 



SUGGESTIONS FOR REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION. 



By Francis G. Newlands. 

The committee, in accordance with Senate resolution No. 324, 
dated March 3, 1909, has visited the reclamation works authorized by 
the act of June 17, 1902, and subsequent legislation, and presents the 
following report of its conclusions : 

This resolution reads as follows : 

Resolved, That the Committee on Irrigation be, and it is hereby, authorized and 
directed, by subcommittee or otherwise, to visit, during the recess of the Senate, such 
reclamation works of the United States Reclamation Service as in the committee's 
judgment should be examined, in order to ascertain existing conditions therewith 
connected and secure information deemed useful in the consideration of future pro- 
posed legislation affecting the reclamation of arid lands. And the committee is fur- 
ther authorized to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, to employ a 
stenographer, and to have such printing done as the committee may require; the 
expense incurred to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers 
to be approved by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent. Expenses of 
the Senate. 

ITINERARY. 

The committee assembled on July 22, 1909, and received general 
statements concerning the work of the Reclamation Service. It 
again met on August 11 in Chicago, 111., and visited various projects, 
adjourning on September 11, at Cheyenne, Wyo., to reassemble at 
Denver, Colo., on October 31, visiting the remaining projects and 
arriving in Chicago on November 22. The itinerary is as follows: 

August 11 (Wednesday). — Members of committee assembled at 
Chicago, 111., viz, Messrs. Carter (chairman), Warren, Flint, and 
Chamberlain, with Senator Paynter, of Kentucky, acting in place of 
Senator Bailey. 

August 12 (Thursday). — En route, Northern Pacific Railway. 

August 13 (Friday). — At Glendive, Mont., joined by Hon. R. A. 
Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior; F. H. Newell, Director of the 
Reclamation Service; Arthur P. Davis, chief engineer; and H. N. 
Savage, supervising engineer. Took automobiles from Glendive to 
head of Lower Yellowstone Canal and down the valley to Sidney, 
Mont. Met at Sidney a committee representing the Buford-Trenton 
Water Users' Association of North Dakota. In the afternoon met 
the water users of the Lower Yellowstone project. In the evening 
the Senate committee met representatives oi the Williston (N. Dak.) 
Water Users' Association. 

August 14 (Saturday) . — From Sidney to Fairview, Mont., by auto- 
mobiles; held a meeting with members of the Lower Yellowstone 
Water Users' Association. Returned to Glendive and held meeting 
with citizens. 

77001—11 ] 



2 %^4^" 

Auaust 15 (Sunday).— At Billings, Mont.; no meetings 
^■^ s ,^ , mIjLj) — Bv train on Northern Pacific Railway, 
ii^f^^^^SJ^ east as Pompeys Pillar Station, 
2dSn ^ returningV^untley, went east on the^a^ Bu^ 
ton & Quincy Railroad to the pumping plant, meeting the settlers 
at 2 30 n. mu at Huntley. . , • 

Auaust 17 (Tuesday) -At Cody, Wyo via wagon conveyance to 
fhf Shoshone Dam returning to Cody and by tram to Corbett Tunnel, 
and ttn bTwag^n down tie route of the tunnel and canal, takmg 

the train back to Cody. -on w™ m ^n ff 

August 18 {Wednesday).- -From Cody to Powell, Wyo., meeting 
the settlers on the Shoshone project. 

iit^urf J0 (Thursday). -At Helena, Mont, and to Great FaUs, 
meeting in the evening with representatives from the *ortbnaw 
unit of the Sun River reclamation project. 
%^ £0 (Fri<%).-From Great Falls to Vaughn, Mont., by 
train, then by automobiles to Fort Shaw, to Sims Creek siphon and 
return to Fort Shaw to hear the statements of the Water Users 
Association. In afternoon via automobile to Fairfield, then to Chou- 
teau and Conrad, Mont, taking train from there to Shelby Junction. 
Secretary of Interior left party. Q , 1W 

Auaust 21 (Saturday).— On Great Northern Railway, from Shelby 
Junction east to Culbertson, Mont, where a meeting was held and 
short speeches made; then by train west through the Fort Peck Indian 
Reservation, making stops at Glasgow, Malta, Dodson (to visit the 
dam), Harlem, Chinook, and Havre. At the latter place a reception 
was tendered by the citizens and speeches were made. 

August 22 (Sunday).— At Browning, Mont.; automobiles to bt. 

Mary Lake. „ ,, ^>- i + 

August 23 (Monday).— -By teams down St. Mary River nearly to 
the Canadian border; then easterly along Spider Lake following the 
route of the proposed canal from St. Mary River to Milk River; then 
by automobile to Browning and by train westwardly. 

August 2^ (Tuesday).— By boat from Somers to Polsen, Mont, 
and by automobiles to St. Ignatius Mission, on the Flathead Indian 
Reservation. Senator Flint left party. . 

August 25 ( Wednesday) .— From St. Ignatius to Polsen and Kalis- 
pell, Mont. Supervising Engineer Savage left party. 

August 26 (Thursday) .—At Spokane, Wash, for short stop, then 
by Northern Pacific Railway to Prosser, Wash, meeting with water 
users in evening. Joined by Senator Jones and Secretary of Interior. 

August 27 (Friday).— From Prosser to Sunny side, Wash, by 
automobiles, meeting with Water Users' Association; then to Zillah 
and Toppenish, and by train from Wapato to North Yakima, Wash. 

August 28 (Saturday).— From North Yakima by automobiles to 
Wide Hollow and Cowiche Valley, walking through the Tieton 
tunnel to camp on Tieton Creek, returning to North Yakima by 
automobiles; meeting in evening with citizens. 

August 29 (Sunday). — At Seattle, Wash. 

August 30 (Monday). — At Seattle, inspecting exposition, and 
attended irrigation lecture by C. J. Blanchard. 

August 31 (Tuesday). — At Seattle; meeting with delegates from 
Okanogan project. 

APr .•< • 1911 



September 1 (Wednesday). — At Portland, Oreg. ; meeting with 
citizens. 

September 2 (Thursday). — From Portland to Umatilla project; 
carriages to Cold Springs Dam and to Hermiston; meeting with 
Water Users' Association. 

September 3 (Friday). — Delayed by floods, spending most of day 
at Baker City, Oreg. Senator Jones left committee. 

September 4 (Saturday). — At Boise, Idaho; visited Boise River 
dam; then oy train to Caldwell, meeting with citizens; then train 
to Xampa; speeches in evening. Joined by Senator Borah. 

September 5 (Sunday). — At Minidoka, Idaho, and by train to 
Burley and return, continuing eastwardly into Wyoming. 

September 6 (Monday). — At Cheyenne, Wyo.; visited Fort D. A. 
Russell and ranch of Senator F. E. Warren. Joined by Senator 
F. G. Xewlands. 

September 7 (Tuesday). — On train to Casper, Wyo., and by auto- 
mobiles and wagons to Pathfinder Dam, accompanied by Gov. B. B. 
Brooks, Senator C. D. Clark, and ex-Senator J. M. Carey. 

September 8 (Wednesday). — Returned from Pathfinder Dam to 
Casper, meeting with citizens, and then to Douglas, Wyo. 

September 9 (Thursday). — By train to Bellefourche, S. Dak., 
Senator Paynter leaving the party. By boat to Bellefourche Dam; 
then by carriages to Owl Creek Dam and return to train. 

September 10 (Friday). — On train from Alliance, Nebr., to Bridge- 
port and Mitchell; meeting with citizens; then by train to Torrington 
and by automobiles into the Goshen Hole region. 

September 11 (Saturday). — From Torrington, Wyo., by train to 
Guernsey, to Sunrise mine, and to Wheatland, Wyo.; meeting with 
citizens; then by train to Cheyenne. The committee then took a 
recess for seven weeks. 

October 31 (Sunday). — The committee reassembled at Denver, Colo. 
Members present: Messrs. Carter (chairman) and Jones; joined by 
Senator Charles J. Hughes, jr., F. H. Newell, director, and R. F. 
Walter, of the Reclamation Service. 

November 1 (Monday). — By train to Salida, Colo., and by narrow- 
gauge train to Lujane, and into lower portal of Gunnison Tunnel; 
then by train to Montrose and by automobiles to Delta, Colo.; meet- 
ing with citizens, and return by train to Montrose; meeting with 
members of Water Users' Association in evening. 

November 2 (Tuesday). — At Grand Junction, Colo., and by train 
to Tunnel station, examining proposed heading of Grand Valley 
Canal; then by train to Palisade and to Grand Junction, and meeting 
with citizens. 

November 3 (Wednesday). — By train to Thistle, Utah, and by 
wagons along the line of the power canal taking water from Spanish 
Fork Creek, continuing to power house of the Strawberry Valley 
project; then by carriages to Salem, Payson, Benjamin, and Spanish 
Fork, meeting there with citizens; then by train to Salt Lake City; 
Senator Sutherland joined party. 

November 4 (Thursday). — At Salt Lake City, visiting Fort Doug- 
las, meeting citizens, and leaving in afternoon for Ogden and West. 

November 5 (Friday). — By train to Hazen and Fallon, Nev. ; 
joined by Senator Newlands; automobiles to examine Truckee-Carson 
project; meeting with Water Users' Association in afternoon, and 
then by train to Reno, meeting with citizens in evening. 



November 6 (Saturday). — By train from Truckee, Cal., to Lake 
Tahoe; examination of dam under construction at the outlet, and on 
boat along west side of lake; return by train to Truckee, and to 
Sacramento. 

November 7 (Sunday). — At Sacramento, Cal. ; informal meeting 
with mayor and citizens; by automobiles up American River to Fair- 
oaks and Folsom, examining gold dredges, and returning to Sacra- 
mento. Chief Engineer Davis joined party. 

November 8 (Monday). — From Sacramento by train to Davisville 
and Woodland; short ride in automobile, then by train to Williams, 
and by automobile to Colusa, and north along Sacramento River to 
Glenn ranch, and to Willow; from there by train to Orland, meeting 
the Water Users' Association; continued north by train. 

November 9 (Tuesday). — At Klamath Falls, Oreg. ; by carriages 
to examine intake of main canal; meeting with Water Users' Asso- 
ciation, leaving by train at 4 p. m. 

November 10 (Wednesday). — By train south to Red Bluff, Cal., 
then by automobile to west side of valley to Los Molinos, through 
the Cone ranch, taking the train south. 

November 11 (Thursday). — At Sacramento and by train to pre- 
cooling plant at Roseville, then to Davisville, visiting the agricul- 
tural college farm; then by train to Dixon to examine pumping 
plants, and to San Francisco; automobile ride to Presidio and return, 
taking train south. Chief Engineer Davis left party. 

November 12 (Friday). — On Southern Pacific Co. train to Fresno 
and Bakersfield; visited oil fields and ranches; then south to Los 
Angeles. 

November 13 (Saturday). — On Southern Pacific train to Hanlon 
Junction, visiting head of Imperial Canal; then by train westwardly 
along the canal through a portion of Mexico to Calexico, El Centro, 
Imperial, and Brawley, Cal., returning to El Centro and by motor 
car to Holtville, examining power plant, and return to El Centro to 
meet citizens. 

November H (Sunday). — At Yuma, Ariz., and by train on west 
side of Colorado River to Laguna Dam, returning to Yuma; then by 
carriages to examine the irrigated lands below Yuma, meeting in 
evening with directors of water users' association and citizens. 

November 15 (Monday). — By Southern Pacific train to Mesa, 
Ariz.; met there by Gov. Richard E. Sloan and by Mr. B. A. Fowler, 
president of the water users' association, and others; by automo- 
biles to Granite Reef Dam, then to Roosevelt to examine the dam. 

November 16 (Tuesday). — From Roosevelt, Ariz., to Mesa by auto- 
mobile, then by train to Phoenix, meeting in the evening with water 
users' association. 

November 17 ( Wednesday). — On Southern Pacific train to El Paso, 
Tex.; joined by Gov. George Curry, of New Mexico, meeting with 
citizens in chamber of commerce and banquet in evening. 

November 18 (Thursday). — On Santa Fe train from El Paso, Tex., 
to Las Cruces, N. Mex., meeting with water users' association; then 
by train to Engle and by automobiles and carriages to the proposed 
site of the Engle Dam and return. 

November 19 (Friday). — On Santa Fe train to Clovis and Roswell, 
meeting with water users' association; then by train to Lakewood; 
visited Lake MacMillan, and by automobiles to Avalon Dam; then 
to Carlsbad, meeting with water users' association. 



November 20 {Saturday) . — Eastward on Santa Fe train, stopping 
at Amarillo, Tex., and Woodward, Okla., meeting there with citizens. 

November 21 {Sunday). — On Santa Fe train to Kansas City. 

November 22 {Monday). — Arrived at Chicago — committee ad- 
journed. 

GENERAL CONDITIONS. 

Reviewing the reclamation works as a whole, the impression 
derived is that these works are well planned and executed and that 
the degree of success attained in this work has been notable. The 
excellence of the results attained was the subject of favorable com- 
ment by the members of the committee while on its inspection trip, 
and was voiced frequently by the several members of the committee 
in public speeches. The opinion of the committee in this respect is 
sustained by the recent report of the board of Army engineers 
appointed in accordance with the act of June 25, 1910, which states 
that "the engineering structures as a whole are well designed and 
well built, and some of them are monuments reflecting great credit 
on both designer and builder;" and further, that the Army board 
was impressed with the ability of the employees occupying positions 
of responsibility. 

As in all great works there were some conditions that might have 
been improved, and there were some matters upon which there was 
difference of judgment, but, taking the work as a whole and con- 
sidering its pioneer character, it may be affirmed that a larger degree 
of success has been attained than is usually observed in corporate 
or private enterprise of this character. 

The object of the reclamation act in reclaiming the arid lands, in 
cutting up the area into small tracts and getting it into the possession 
of actual settlers has been carried out. The great majority of the 
settlers are successful and the percentage of irrigators who have not 
been able to succeed is remarkably low, considering the fact that the 
opportunities offered have been seized upon by persons having little, 
if any, previous experience in irrigation. 

The works executed by the Reclamation Service form a standard 
for construction throughout the arid region. As a result of the careful 
planning and execution, these works have become models which are 
being copied by all new enterprises; not only .is this true of the features 
on the ground, but as shown in the evidence the methods of adminis- 
tration and bookkeeping developed to meet these conditions have 
been adopted by various corporations engaging in similar lines of 
work. 

It may be fairly claimed that the results attained under the opera- 
tions of the reclamation act are superior to those following from any 
other similar legislation having to do with the use of public lands or 
the funds derived from them in internal improvements. 

PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS. 

The work of the Reclamation Service has been the subject of fre- 
quent investigations by committees of both Houses of Congress. 
Personal visits have been made by Senators and Representatives, 
acting singly or in groups. Three years after the passage of the 



6 

reclamation act an informal joint committee of the Senate and House 
visited nearly all of the projects, going over them in considerable 
detail and becoming familiar with the conditions. Later a series of 
hearings was had before committees in the Senate and in the House. 
In the case of the latter the hearings were printed in a considerable 
edition and distributed. The most important of these are as follows: 

January 13 to 20, 1905, hearings before the Committee on Irrigation 
of the House of Representatives, printed as Fifty-eighth Congress, 
third session, House Document No. 381, 159 pages. 

April 16 to 30, 1906, hearings, etc., before the House committee, 
244 printed pages. 

February 1 to 11, 1909, hearings, etc., 144 pages, illustrated. 

April 23 to June 8, 1910, hearings, etc., 189 pages. 

These hearings were well attended by Members of the House and 
nearly every phase of the subject was gone into. The Secretaries of 
the Interior, Hitchcock and Garfield, appeared and gave full state- 
ments. Evidence was also had from the principal officers of the 
Reclamation Service. 

APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS. 

The apportionment of the reclamation fund has been governed 
largely by the conditions incorporated in the law and by require- 
ments of feasibility and practicability. The projects which have 
been undertaken, as shown by the evidence (p. 157), were determined 
upon during the years 1903 to 1906 by the then Secretary of the 
Interior, Mr. Hitchcock, in consultation with the Director of the 
Geological Survey, Mr. Walcott, under whom the Reclamation Service 
was organized, presumably after conference with the President. 

All the reclamation projects, 27 in all, located in 14 States and 2 
Territories, were planned and approved during the administration 
of Mr. Roosevelt and whilst Mr. E. A. Hitchcock was Secretary of 
the Interior. During the entire time that the planning and approval 
of these projects were under consideration Mr. Charles D. Walcott, 
the Director of the Geological Survey, was the director of the recla- 
mation work, Mr. F. H. Newell occupying the position of chief engi- 
neer, and Mr. A. P. Davis the position of assistant engineer under 
him, both of them beingoin the field most of the time. Mr. Walcott 
and Mr. Hitchcock were in constant conference with President Roose- 
velt regarding these plans and projects, so that the ultimate responsi- 
bility for them all, either for good or for evil, must be placed upon 
these officials. The committee is of the opinion that they discharged 
their duty with thorough conscientiousness and that the plans and 
projects approved are to be commended as broad and comprehensive 
and fully justified by the terms of the reclamation act. 

When Mr. Garfield became Secretary of the Interior and Mr. 
Newell Director of the Reclamation Service, the projects had all been 
approved, and to them only attaches the responsibility of admin- 
istration and carrying out the plans and executing the projects 
already approved along the lines previously laid down. 

Since 1907 there has been no large work initiated, but efforts have 
been concentrated on finishing the approved portions of the projects 
then undertaken in order to bring under irrigation as large areas of 
land as possible and to secure the maximum return of the investment. 



Beginning in 1902 examinations and surveys were made in each 
State and Territory named in the reclamation act, and construction 
undertaken on at least one project in each State. In several of the 
States more than one project has been begun, but in each case this 
was required either by legislation or by conditions which forced the 
taking up of a project in order to hold the necessary rights needed 
in the ultimate development of important national works. 

ORGANIZATION. 

Upon the passage of the reclamation act of June 17, 1902, the work 
of surveying and examination, being similar to that previously carried 
on by the Geological Survey, was continued under the same organiza- 
tion, being for administrative purposes within the rrydrographic 
branch of the Geological Survey. The director of that survey, 
Charles D. Walcott, took great interest in the matter, and from time 
to time personally reported the results of surveys and examinations 
to the Secretary of the Interior, conferring with him at frequent inter- 
vals and with the President. (See printed testimony of Secretary 
E. A. Hitchcock before House Committee on Irrigation, Apr. 16, 1906.) 

From these surveys various alternative projects were developed. 
Selection was made by the Secretary of the Interior, tentative or 
conditional allotments being given in each case, thus permitting 
work to proceed at the earliest practicable date, while the difficult 
questions of rights of way were being solved, or other obstacles were 
being removed. 

The irrigation systems laid out were as a rule on a large and com- 
prehensive scale, consistent with a national enterprise, and involved 
works which could be completed in detail coincident with the gradual 
development and growth of the country. The organization directly 
handling this work was increased from time to time as need of more 
men was appreciated, and ultimately the Reclamation Service was 
recognized as a separate body, gradually diverging from the Geological 
Survey as it entered upon lines of construction. Whilst the inti- 
mate connection with the Geological Survey was gradually severed, 
the intimate relations with the office of the Secretary of the Interior 
were continued and strengthened. 

CONTROL BY THE SECRETARY. 

The organization as shown by the evidence has at all times been 
under the immediate personal control of the Secretary of the Interior. 
All important details of its work have been submitted for approval in 
advance. At short intervals, generally every three months, a state- 
ment has been prepared showing the work in hand, the amount 
expended, the proposed work, and probable cost. Every contract 
has been signed by the Secretary, excepting in the case of minor 
matters, where suitable authority was delegated to the field men. 
Monthly statements have been rendered in concise form of the total 
financial operations and all important original documents have been 
filed in the Secretary's office, excepting such as were needed elsewhere, 
in which case, copies were retained. (See printed evidence by Secre- 
tary Hitchcock before House Committee on Irrigation Apr. 16, 1906; 
also evidence of Secretary Garfield Feb. 11, 1909.) 



8 

PRIVATE LANDS. 

The committee has had brought before it and has considered the 
question of the propriety and legality of utilizing the reclamation 
fund in the irrigation of private lands. This is a matter which has 
been frequently discussed, and was apparently settled, by Congress 
in the passage of the act itself. It was further confirmed by Congress 
in subsequent legislation, notably that relating to the extension of 
the act to Texas, where there are no public lands. 

Briefly reviewing the conditions, it is to be noted that this subject 
of the reclamation of private lands was brought up in the Committee 
on Arid Lands of the -House. (See printed reports 56th Cong., 2d 
sess., H. Rept. 2927, pts. 1, 2, 3, and 4.) The views of the minority 
members on this point were fully set forth in documents presented to 
Congress, but were not adopted by the committee nor by the House. 
All of the arguments, since discussed, were advanced early in 1902. 
Subsequent to the passage of the act the matter was again considered 
by Congress in taking up other legislation. 

The interpretation of the act in this regard and its application to 
present conditions is largely revealed by the history of its passage. 
Many bills on that subject were introduced in the House in Decem- 
ber, 1900, and January, 1901. All of these bills were in substan- 
tially the same terms, in that they provided for the setting aside of 
moneys received from the disposal of public lands and for the creation 
of a fund to be used for the construction of reservoirs and other 
hydraulic works for the storage and diversion of water for the irriga- 
tion and reclamation of arid lands (not arid public lands). 

These bills were reported favorably by the Committee on Public 
Lands and by the Committee on Arid Lands of the House. A similar 
bill was introduced in the Senate and was reported from the Senate 
Committee on Public Lands on February 4, 1901. (See history of act 
in printed hearing before the Committee on Irrigation of House of 
Representatives, Feb. 1 to 11, 1909, p. 64, etc.) 

In December, 1901, a volunteer so-called arid land committee, com- 
posed of 17 Senators and Representatives from the arid States, made 
a report following in general lines the bills previously reported and 
calling for the reclamation of arid and semiarid lands (not public 
lands). 

In the discussion of this and other bills and proposed modifications 
the idea was kept prominently in mind that private lands as well as 
public were to be reclaimed, and that where these lands were in the 
hands of large owners these owners should be forced to subdivide the 
area reclaimed into small tracts. This matter was discussed in com- 
mittee and in various informal conferences on the subject. (See 
reports on these bills and views of minority.) 

The purpose of Congress with reference to the reclamation of arid 
lands, without respect to the character of ownership, whether public 
or private, is shown as follows: 

First. In the original bills and reports relating to the subject the 
discussion of these in committees of the Senate and House and in 
discussion of them on the floor. (See printed evidence and reports, 
notably 56th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 2927, pts. 1, 2, 3, and 4; also 
Cong. Rec, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp, 6678, 6747, and 6769.) 



Second. It was well known at the time of the passage of the act 
that in several of the States mentioned in the act, notably in Kansas, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma, there was little, if any, public land which 
could be reclaimed. 

Third. Subsequent to the passage of the original law, namely, in 
June 12, 1906, the provisions of the reclamation act were extended to 
Texas, where, as was well known, the Federal Government had no 
public lands. In the act of February 25, 1905, the construction of the 
Rio Grande Dam was authorized for the purpose of irrigation of lands 
in New Mexico and in Texas. The discussion on this was prolonged 
and the question was fully debated. (See printed testimony of House 
committee.) 

A congressional party which visited the reclamation works in 1905 
consisted of Members of the House and Senate, made a general trip 
throughout the arid region, and inquired into the operation of the law. 
Individual members, visiting all of the projects at one time or another, 
knew of the character of ownership of the land as a matter of common 
information. 

From time to time various committees of the House and Senate 
have investigated the entire subject in its different bearings and with 
full knowledge of the fact that the reclamation fund was being utilized 
in the reclamation of private as well as of public arid lands. The 
Members from the States where there were no reclaimable public 
lands have taken personal interest in the operation of the act and 
have visited the works and discussed this matter informally without 
unfavorable comment. 

From all these facts, namely, the discussions of the committee, the 
reports made by individual members, favorable or unfavorable, the 
subsequent legislation, the personal inspection of the works, there can 
be no doubt as to the intention of Congress with reference to the pri- 
vate lands. 

The constitutional power in the matter was fully discussed and' the 
concensus of opinion was that Congress had power to devote the 
proceeds from public lands to any purpose it pleased. It is admitted 
that these lands can be given away to the railroads, or devoted to 
internal improvements, or the proceeds can be given to the educa- 
tional or other enterprises, or utilized in any way within the discre- 
tion of Congress. 

A sound argument as to constitutionality also lies in the fact that 
in almost every project involving large area of public land the waters 
stored or diverted for use of irrigation are tributary to or part of 
streams used in navigation. 

The works above Orland, Cal., designed to irrigate lands almost 
entirely in private ownership, are upon the headwaters of a tributary 
of Sacramento River. The works constructed, although relatively 
small, are a model and form an incentive for the construction of other 
similar works, which in the aggregate will have a decided effect upon 
the water supply of Sacramento River. There has been no question 
but that if the development is continued either by Federal or State, 
or by corporations, in storing the headwaters of Sacramento River, 
the united effect of all these reservoirs joined to that for the Orland 
unit of the Sacramento project, will materially influence the navi- 
gable use of the Sacramento River. 



10 

The individual Representatives and Senators from the States named 
in the act, where there was little, if any, reclaimable arid public lands, 
have never questioned the legality and propriety of devoting a portion 
of the fund to the reclamation of arid lands in the States, irrespective 
of ownership, and although members from other States ably presented 
arguments before the passage of the act, these Senators and Repre 
sentatives contended that the reclamation of arid lands in private 
ownership was an economical necessity, and one justified by law, 
and in this contention they were upheld by a large majority in 
Congress. 

This idea was embodied in section 9 of the original act, which 
required the expenditure of funds by States not in accordance with 
the character of ownership of the land, but wholly with reference to 
the feasibility. This section was urged and adopted because of the 
recognition of the fact by everyone that, if projects were selected 
wholly with reference to relative merit, the tendency would be to 
construct works almost wholly within a few extremely arid States 
and Territories where there was a maximum of public lands still in 
public ownership. Thus the States from which the sales of public 
lands contributed the bulk of the reclamation fund would be without 
benefit and the States whose public-land sales contributed least to 
the fund would receive almost all the benefit. It was feared that 
Kansas, with little or no public land, would be neglected. It was 
also feared that Oregon, with its enormous land grants, running in 
checkerboard fashion across the State, would not get its share. The 
object of this section of the act was to make an artificial barrier by 
which the Secretary of the Interior would be forced to take up 
projects of less merit, distributing them by State lines, and including 
private lands. 

Congress in enacting this legislation did it with the fullest possible 
consideration of this question of the irrigation of private lands. 
The conclusion reached, as shown by the passage of the law, was 
that the body of Congress, composed largely of lawyers, considered 
that irrigation of private lands was a proper and constitutional act, 
every conceivable argument having been presented either in reports 
or in speeches upon the floor. 

No executive officer could possibly question the intent of Congress 
as shown by the literature upon the subject, and when projects were 
brought to the attention of Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock with 
the statement that the arid lands involved were mainly if not en- 
tirely in private ownership, he had assurance as to the intent of 
Congress in this matter, both from the reports available and from 
the individual advice and requests of the Members of Congress from 
the States concerned. 

INCREASED COST. 

One of the principal sources of popular complaint investigated by 
the committee has been that of increase of acreage cost over the 
amount first assumed. The cause of this has been carefully consid- 
ered. It is apparent that the acreage cost which the irrigators are 
now called upon to pay is greater than that which was considered in 
earlier years. Everyone concerned with the work now recognizes 
that where $30 per acre was considered a fair cost of reclamation in 



11 

1902 or 1903, the works when actually executed have cost $40 or 
more per acre. 

The committee finds that such increase of cost over the original 
assumption is due to several causes, as follows: 

First. Increase of units of cost for labor and materials. 

Second. Increase in number of details to which works have been 
completed for the irrigation of lands. 

Third. Decrease in acreage assumed to be irrigable. 

Fourth. Erroneous assumptions. 

The cost per acre for reclamation of land is arrived at by dividing 
the total cost of all of the works by the total acreage irrigated. If 
after the original plans are made additional works are added the cost 
per acre will increase. After the completion of the works if, for any 
reason, certain lands are withheld from irrigation, or can not be 
included in the project, the acreage cost for the remainder will increase. 

First. Increased unit cost: The increase of cost of the work above 
the original assumptions has been a subject of consideration. It has 
also been discussed frequently in hearings before the House and 
Senate, notably in the hearing before the House Committee on Ways 
and Means March 8, 1910, in a statement of Hon. F. W. Mondell. 
On page 67 he shows that in his opinion the cost of the class of work 
under discussion has increased more than 60 per cent on the average, 
above original estimates, and on page 68 states that — 

The most rigid examination of the unit prices which are carried in every one of the 
annual reports of the Reclamation Service will show, I think, that unit prices advanced 
all the way from 20 per cent to 75 per cent. 

Mr. Mondell, as former chairman and for many years a member 
of the House Committee on Irrigation, took a keen personal interest 
in these matters, not only because of the fact that work was being 
carried on in his State, but because of his own personal experience 
in connection with contract work. 

Similar testimony has been given by other men competent to judge 
of the matter. The fact has been fully discussed in the news and 
editorial columns of technical publications, such as the Engineering 
News and Engineering Record, so that it may be taken as a fact 
established beyond controversy that prices for material and labor 
did advance considerably during the earlier years of construction 
by the Reclamation Service. 

A comparison of the earlier estimates with the amounts actually 
paid shows that when due allowance is made for this increase in unit 
cost of labor and material the earlier estimates were remarkably 
close and the works contemplated could have been built within the 
estimates during the years in which such estimates were prepared. 

Second. A notable increase in acreage cost of the works has been 
due to the fact that when first initiated it was proposed that the 
Government should build the reservoirs and main-line canals, leaving 
the distributing works to be built by the settlers. It was also assumed 
that the settlers would provide necessary bridges, flumes, or other 
structures for roads, and would do much of the work such as had 
been customary in connection with the smaller works built by indi- 
vidual enterprise. Experience showed, however, that this was 
impracticable and that the Government could not get back the 
money invested under the terms of the reclamation act in the larger 
works unless the smaller works were completed in considerable detail. 



12 

The addition of large numbers of smaller structures added very 
notably to the total cost of the work, as well as to its value to the 
settler. 

Third. The increase of acreage cost of irrigable land is the result 
in many instances of the reduction of acreage over the amount assumed 
to be available in the original estimates. The tendency has been to 
gradually cut down the area considered as irrigable owing to various 
conditions. It has been discovered, for example, that where prelimi- 
nary examination has shown an entire quarter section as irrigable 
later studies have led to the exclusion of from 10 to 20 acres, or even 
more, of lands found to be a trifle too high to be reached by economi- 
cally constructed ditches, or the soil has been discovered to be of 
inferior quality. 

Also where it was assumed that the lands would be made available 
by the owners the titles to these lands have been found to be in 
such condition that tliey could not be included in the project. 

Fourth. Many of the complaints of increase of cost above the first 
assumption were due to misinformation or to forgetfulness of past 
conditions. When the works were started every man in the country 
involved was eager to ascertain what would be the probable cost 
per acre. The engineers were instructed to the effect that this cost 
would only be determined as required by law, namely, after the con- 
tracts had been let and all of the facts ascertained, at which time 
the Secretary of the Interior would announce the cost per acre. 
(See testimoiry before House committee.) 

It was also made public through the newspapers and in addresses 
that the engineers had no functions nor authority beyond that of 
engineers in ascertaining the facts and reporting upon these to the 
department and in building the works as authorized. Neverthe- 
less, the field men were importuned to make some sort of statements 
of individual opinion. With the engineers associating on intimate 
terms with the people of the country it was impossible for them not 
to express some ideas of their own in conversation, and such con- 
versations were frequently repeated with a tendency to omit all 
qualifying clauses. 

This tendency is shown, for example, where it was asserted that 
the Chief Engineer of the Reclamation Service had assured the 
people of the Klamath Falls region that water could be had at $18.62 
per acre. The report of this meeting published in the daily paper 
of the next morning (see testimony, p. 938) quoted the chief engineer 
as saying that he did not know what the cost would be, but that 
similar projects had cost about $26 per acre. 

There is no doubt in the minds of the committee but that the 
engineers and all concerned believe that many of these works could 
be built for a less amount than the sums which have been expended, 
but there is no evidence to show that the increased cost is due to 
any conditions within the control of the Reclamation Service. 

In order to exhibit in concise manner the principal facts developed 
in the hearings of the Senate committee and in the report of the 
board of Army engineers with reference to increase of cost, the fol- 
lowing table has been compiled showing the acreage cost as orig- 
inally assumed in comparison with the figures ultimately announced 
by the Secretary of the Interior. The early assumptions as to prob- 
able cost are probably best indicated by the par value of the stock of 



13 

the water users' association in cases where this exceeds a mere nominal 
amount, such as $1 per acre. 

In this table opposite is given a column in which is stated the 
popular ideas as to the future cost as developed at the hearings. In 
most cases this was indefinite or vague. Opposite this is the building 
charge in cases where this has been announced. The last column 
has been added showing the land values as given in the report of the 
board of Army engineers. 

It appears from this table that for the 27 projects listed the building 
charges have been announced for 16 of these, and that in these 16 
cases the par value of stock of the water users' association is, as a rule, 
less than the announced charge. Omitting the cases where there 
were no settlers on the ground at the time of the initiation of the 
work, and therefore no advance understanding could be had by them 
as to probable cost, and also the cases, such as that at Yuma, where 
the par value was nominal, the average par value of the stock was 
$33.50 and the average building charge announced was $41.60, 
showing an increase over the original par value of a little less than 
25 per cent. 



State. 



Arizona 

Caifornia 

Colorado 

Idaho 

Kansas 

Montana 

Nebraska-Wyoming 

Nevada 

New Mexico-Texas . 
New Mexico 

North Dakota 

Oregon 

South Dakota 

Utah 

Washington 

Wyoming 



Project. 



Salt River 

Yuma 

Orland 

Uncompahgre 

Grand Valley 

Boise 

Minidoka 

Garden City 

Huntley 

Milk River 

Lower Yellowstone . 

Sun River 

North Platte 

Truckee-Carson 

Rio Grande 

Carlsbad 

Hondo 

Buford-Trenton 

Williston 

Umatilla 

Klamath 

Bellefourche 

Strawberry Valley . 

Okanogan 

Sunnyside 

Tieton 

Shoshone 



Par 
value. 



$15.00 

15.00 

50.00 

1.00 

1.00 

15.00 



30.00 



25.00 

30.00 

30.00 

1.00 



40.00 
20.00 
20.00 
20.00 
25.00 
60.00 
20.00 
34.00 
40.00 
50.00 
50.00 
60.00 



Popular 
ideas as to 


Building 


future cost. 


charge. 


C 1 ) 


( 2 ) 


0) 


$55. 00 


C 1 ) 


( 2 ) 


$40. 00 


( 2 ) 


60.00 


( 2 ) 


0) 


( 2 ) 


22.00 


3 22. 00 


C 1 ) 


35.00 


(5) 




C 1 ) 


( 2 ) 


30.00 


42.50 


( 6 ) 


30.00 


C 1 ) 


35.00 


22.00 


3 22.00 


40.00 


( 2 ) 


0) 


31.00 


( x ) 


( 2 ) 


0) 


38.00 


C 1 ) 


38.00 


C 1 ) 


60.00 


18. 62-26. 00 


30.00 


0) 


30.00 


0) 


( 2 ) 


0) 


65.00 


50.00 


52.00 


C 1 ) 




( 5 ) 


45.00 



Value of 

irrigated 

lands. 



$160-$200 

150- 200 

100 

50- 150 

200- 400 

150- 250 

100 

( 4 ) 

75 
75- 100 

( 4 ) 

75- 100 
75- 100 
75 
200- 300 
50- 150 
( 4 ) 
( 4 ) 
( 4 ) 
( 4 ) 
( 4 ) 

75- 100 

60- 250 

100- 300 

200- 500 

125- 175 

( 4 ) 



1 Indefinite. 2 Not yet announced. 3 Later comers, $30. 



4 Not given. 



5 None. 



PREMATURE SETTLEMENT. 



The chief difficulty and source of complaint in connection with the 
operations of the reclamation act, as shown by the testimony, has 
grown out of the fact that the lands withdrawn for irrigation under 
the terms of the act were open to entry and settlement during the 
entire time within which surveys and examinations and construction 
were carried on. Thus, when it was proposed to start upon a large 
enterprise involving ultimately the expenditure of many millions of 
dollars and the reclamation of large tracts of public lands, all of these 
were by law left open to homestead entry. Although it was obvious 



14 

that all of the lands could not be supplied with water for many years, 
yet under the law the homesteaders could locate upon these. 

It thus happened that wherever surveys were begun and there 
appeared a probability that a project could ultimately be constructed, 
the public lands were immediately filed upon and men attempted to 
establish homes long in advance of construction. The inducements 
to do this arose from the fact that the lands, which were obtained for 
practically nothing, were likely to advance rapidly in value as work 
progressed. Even though water might not be had, the possible sale 
of relinquishments were such as to make the effort attractive. Such 
relinquishments, as shown by the testimony, were sold at from $5 an 
acre up to as high as $40 an acre, or even more, although water was 
not available and might not be for many years. 

At the time of the inspection by the Senate committee the greater 
part of the areas thus entered upon prematurely were irrigated, but there 
still remain large numbers of settlers within or adjacent to projects 
to whom it was not possible to deliver water. The hardships endured 
by these people were such as to move the members of the committee 
to take steps ultimately resulting in the passage of a provision (sec. 
5 of the act of June 25, 1910) that no entry should be thereafter 
made and no entryman permitted to go upon lands reserved for irri- 
gation purposes until the unit of acreage and water charges had 
been fixed. This important modification of the original reclamation 
act will result in preventing an extension of this unfavorable feature. 
Meantime, or by the end of 1910, it is understood that most of these 
settlers have been provided with water. (See House hearing, Feb. 1 
to 11, 1909, p. 120.) 

It appears that the reclamation act compelled the Secretary of the 
Interior to keep open for homestead entry all lands embraced within 
an irrigation project. This was supposedly in the interest of the 
homestead settler, but as a matter of fact was greatly to his disad- 
vantage, for a long time was sure to elapse between the time of entry 
and the completion of the project. This was a period of distress and 
suffering to the settler, as he, of course, was unable to make a liveli- 
hood from the soil without the application of water, and the comple- 
tion of the project alone would secure the water. Much of the com- 
plaint, therefore, that has come from settlers who made premature 
entry of lands arises from this source and is not attributable in any 
way to the operations of the Reclamation Service. Many of the 
Representatives from the West contended that the lands embraced 
within an irrigation project should be withdrawn from entry until the 
project was completed, but they were overruled in legislation, and the 
fault lies with Congress and not with the Reclamation Service. 

WERE TOO MANY PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN? 

The committee was frequently called upon to consider whether the 
projects undertaken did not exceed in numbers those which could 
be economically finished. It is conceded that there were no more 
than desired by the Representatives of the States affected. The 
people of Montana did not admit that the four in that State were 
too many. Montana has four large projects, besides several on 
Indian reservations. The people of Idaho, having two large projects, 
did not admit that they had too many. Nor did the people of Wash- 
ington, having two. 



15 

The law required a feasible project to be constructed in each one 
of the States and Territories affected, some 16 in number, within a 
period of 10 years. If the Secretary of the Interior had contented 
himself with only one project in each State, some of the most valuable 
projects in Montana, Idaho, and Washington would have been left out. 

In approving these projects there was no appearance of overhaste. 
The purpose of the reclamation act was to lay broad and deep the 
foundations of the future projects, leaving different portions to be 
completed hereafter in orderly sequence as the foundations were fur- 
nished, just as a great city water system is planned, which may take 
a generation to build, by the construction of the trunk lines, mean- 
while utilizing the finished portions as available. If these projects 
had not been commenced, many of them would have been made 
impossible by the drifting of certain portions of the lands embraced 
within the projects into private ownership for other uses. The 
gathering together of the scattered sections of a great project would 
have created such a waste of time and money as to make them impos- 
sible. It was, therefore, wise to plan broadly and to approve all 
the projects that could be within any reasonable expectation finished 
within a period of 30 years. It is estimated that all of these projects, 
with the money available from the reclamation fund, could have 
been finished in a much less time. The $20,000,000 bond issue 
simply accelerates the work for the present. Later on the payment 
of this debt out of the fund will slow down the work. 

PUMPING PROJECTS. 

Criticism was directed against the early administrators of the act 
in that projects for pumping water were initiated in North Dakota 
and Kansas, these being within the semiarid region where the 
conditions were such that it was impossible to procure water by 
the ordinary method used in irrigation, namely, by gravity ditches. 
The reclamation act required the selection of projects in these States, 
if feasible, and it was found to be practicable to build works which 
supply water to semiarid lands by lifting it. 

The printed testimony in the various hearings before the House 
committee and that taken by the Senate committee shows that the 
Senators and Representatives ,from these States, as well as the 
citizens interested, were urgent in having these plants built. It also 
shows that when completed the water users were disappointed at 
what seemed to them the excessive cost and have neglected or 
refused to utilize the water provided in accordance with the terms 
of the act. Thus the pumping plant at Garden City, Kans., although 
completed, has remained unused since the first year of operation, 
and that on Missouri River, in the vicinity of Williston and Buford- 
Trenton, has only been partly used. 

It has been asserted in the case of the latter that if certain legisla- 
tion, which has passed the Senate and is now pending in the House, 
is enacted, which will enable the Secretary of the Interior to rescind 
the existing contract and enter into a more favorable arrange- 
ment, then the people will avail themselves of the pumping plant and 
will ultimately return the cost. The same is true at Garden City, 
where it is believed that when the normal dry years return to this 
locality, there will be an immediate and pressing demand for starting 
up the pumps again. : :, g 



If) 

HONDO PROJECT. 

Another project, and the least expensive of all undertaken — that on 
Hondo River, in New Mexico — has also been found by the committee 
to be the subject of considerable criticism, far out of proportion to 
the importance of the subject. It appears that a reservoir has been 
built on this river, but that since the completion of the reservoir 
there has been an extraordinary decrease locally in the rainfall, so 
that while if the reservoir had been finished a few years earlier it 
would have been filled, it has so happened that since the time of 
completion there have been none of the customary floods in the 
reservoir. It is apparent that these abnormal conditions can not 
continue indefinitely, and that there will be unquestionably a return 
to previous climatic conditions. This is the view entertained by the 
people on the ground, who are optimistic and who testify that the 
land values have been increased by the building of the works, and 
who have full faith in their ultimate success. The fact, however, 
that this reservoir has stood nearly empty since the completion has 
been very widely exploited, this (less than 1 per cent of apparent failure) , 
being given far greater weight than the 95 per cent or more of assured 
success. 

PURCHASE OF CANALS. 

Another subject brought before the committee and widely dis- 
cussed in the hearings was the policy of the Secretary of the Interior 
in purchasing existing canals in order to acquire necessary rights of 
way for larger systems or to incorporate these in the new works. 
For example, the Sunnyside Canal, in the State of Washington, was 
purchased as the key to the Yakima project; the Arizona Canal, in 
Arizona, as the controlling feature in the Salt River Valley distri- 
bution system. 

The largest expenditures, relatively, were made in connection with 
the Klamath project, Oregon, where Secretary Hitchcock purchased 
several canals and conceded the existence of certain rights. This 
matter appears to have been fully understood and publicly discussed 
and approved at the time, but four years later, at the time of the 
visit of the Senate committee, there was severe criticism directly or 
indirectly made of Secretary Hitchcock, Director Walcott, and the 
engineers and law examiners who had taken part in the matter, 
including the district attorney and the Attorney General, who passed 
upon the titles, it being intimated that there existed widespread 
collusion or neglect of official duties in making these purchases. 

The preliminary surveys of the Klamath project were made in 1903 
and 1904. It was then ascertained that in order to reach any con- 
siderable body of Government or private lands it would be necessary 
to obtain certain vested rights which had already attached to the 
waters of both upper and lower Klamath lakes and adjacent land. 
Surveys for alternative schemes were made, and it was found that it 
would be impossible to take up any project in this part of the State 
without paralleling existing canals at large expense or purchasing 
those in existence or partly constructed. 

The matter was discussed publicly, both in the press and in the 
water-users' association. The latter organization, representing the 



17 

people who owned lands and who had subscribed for water in the 
private irrigation systems, passed resolutions urging that the Gov- 
ernment acquire the existing canals and consolidate them into the 
proposed larger system. Owing to the hesitation on the part of the 
Secretary in taking up the matter, the water-users' association urged 
that the Reclamation Service should pay a still higher price than that 
ultimately agreed upon. 

The matter was referred to various engineers and to a board of 
engineers, and was taken up personally by the Director of the Gee- 
logical Survey, Mr. Charles D. Walcott. Great impatience was 
shown by the people of Oregon and their Representatives in Congress, 
and the Secretary was importuned to push forward the work and pay 
any reasonable amount rather than let the enterprise be delayed or 
abandoned. All of this is a matter of public record in the press and 
in the files of the office of the Secretary of the Interior. 

After full consideration by Secretary Hitchcock, in consultation 
with Director Walcott, the agreements were finally maele and sub- 
mitted to the district attorne}^ in Oregon to pass upon the question 
of titles and of sufficiency, and payment was finally made. The 
transaction met with general public approval, and it was not until 
four years after it had been completed anel the money paid that any 
serious question was raised. By that time the people had forgotten 
the facts. When the Senate committee visited Klamath Falls, state- 
ments were maele before the committee which, upon examination, 
were found to be wholly incorrect an4 not in accordance with the 
records in the case, either as to dates, amounts, or agreements. The 
only point left unsettled was as to whether in recognizing the rights 
of Moore Bros, to certain riparian ownership and water filings the law 
officers of the department had conceded to Moore Bros, an ownership 
beyond that which was necessary or legal. This latter had been 
entered into after long negotiations and careful consieleration of 
Oregon laws and vested rights. Previous to the visit of the Senate 
committee Secretary Garfield visited the project, gave personal 
examination to the works anel to the records, and expressed himself 
as satisfied, and commended the arrangements which had been maele. 

After the visit of the Senate committee, Secretary Ballinger was 
furnished with a copy of the hearings and later visited the ground in 
person and left Mr. Finney with instructions to investigate the ques- 
tions which had been raised at the time of the visit of the Senate 
committee. Mr. Finney declared publicly at a meeting at Klamath 
Falls, and it was so stated in the public press, that there was no 
foundation whatever for the charges made of paying excessive prices. 

The valuations now attached to the properties thus acquired, as 
shown in the testimony before the Senate committee, are larger than 
the amount paid. 

It is claimed by some that the concession given to Moore Bros, 
would develop something in excess of 1,000 horsepower, worth 
$400,000. If this were true, as the Government has a flow double 
that conceded to Moore Bros, and a higher drop, its waterpower 
would be worth at least $800,000, the total cost of both being only 
the $90,000 expended on the canal. 

The Klamath Irrigation Co.'s ditch (Ankeney) on the opposite 
side of the river could also develop a large amount of power, which, 
at the valuation given, would be worth, say, $500,000, and for which 

77001—11 2 



18 

-150.000 was paid — this including several miles of irrigating canal 
utilized or destroyed in building the system. 

There has also been some criticism of the drainage of swamp lands. 
This the committee finds is expressly authorized by an act of Con- 
gress of February 9, 1905, which empowers the Secretary of the 
Interior to raise or lower the level of Klamath and other lakes and 
dispose of any lands which may come into the possession of the 
United States as the result thereof by cession of any State. This 
act was preceded by an act of the State of California and an act of 
the State of Oregon making cession of these lands. 

ALLEGED DOUBTFUL PEOJECTS. 

Of all the projects undertaken only three were criticized in the 
hearings, namely, the Missouri River pumping projects, known as the 
Beuford-Trenton and Williston, in North Dakota, the Garden City 
project in Kansas, and the Hondo project in New Mexico. All of 
these projects together involve only between 2 and 3 per cent of the 
entire amount thus far expended. It will, therefore, be seen that 
no considerable amount is involved; nor should it be admitted that 
they are failures, which is not conceded. It is true that although 
North Dakota contributed very largely to the reclamation fund, it 
is difficult to find a suitable reclamation project. The only feasible 
project is that involving the pumping of water from the Missouri 
River to the level of the adjacent lands where it could be used for 
areas which had not quite the full rain supply needed for crops. This 
project has not as yet proved altogether successful, in that many of 
the farmers prefer to take chances on an insufficient rain supply 
rather than pay the Government cost. But they are rapidly being 
converted to the contrary view, and it is probable that the water 
rights under this project will be taken up within a reasonable time. 

As to the Garden City plant, which involved the construction of a 
pump for the purpose of raising subterranean waters, whilst admit- 
tedly largely experimental in the first instance, it was regarded as 
sufficiently feasible by capable engineers to require its construction 
under the terms of the act. The amount expended has been incon- 
siderable. The water is there, the lands are there, and the people 
are there; and when there is a recurrence of continued dry seasons, 
as there has been in the past, there is every reason to believe that the 
farmers will hasten to assure themselves of a permanent supply by 
securing the water rights under this plan. 

As to the Hondo project, the history of the rainfall in that region 
in New Mexico has been that at long intervals there will be an abso- 
lute drought for two or three years, preventing the storage of any 
water. Such a period intervened immediately after the construc- 
tion of the Hondo dam, and it has been without water for three years ; 
but the periodic history of the entire region will be revolutionized if 
the experience of the past is not realized — namely, that these periods 
of drought are followed by periods of freshets, which will enable the 
filling of the Hondo reservoir to its utmost capacity. 

As to Klamath Falls, some criticism has been indulged in as to the 
feasibility of the project. It is intimated that the Government ought 
not to have undertaken it, because it involved more private lands than 
public lands and because it involved not only the reclamaiton of arid 



19 

lands but the reclamation of swamp lands. It is also contended that 
the Secretary of the Interior was injudicious in taking over certain 
private canals at considerable cost, and particulary injudicious in con- 
ceding the right to 205 second-feet of water to Moore Bros., in which 
they claimed a vested right, and which delivered to them, through 
the canal built by the Reclamation Service, as a water-power develop- 
ment, it is claimed, of 1,000 horsepower of the value of $400 a horse- 
power. 

The question as to whether private lands were involved in the 
reclamation act has already been considered. There can be no ques- 
tion about the feasibility of the enterprise. There can be no question 
but that Oregon and California, contributing as largely as they did to 
the reclamation fund, were entitled, both equitably and under the law 
itself, to the initiation of this project, one of the future practical 
projects not already embraced in private enterprise in these States. 

This improvement involved the development of lands below 
Klamath Lake and Klamath River. Private enterprises already 
existed, two canal companies taking water from the lake down the 
river valley on the one side of the river and another private canal 
company taking it upon the other side. The latter had riparian 
rights. For the two former the Government paid $200,000. In the 
acquisition of the latter the Government recognized the existing right, 
which was declared by the legal authorities to be a vested right, and 
agreed to carry in the canal to be constructed by the Government 
205 cubic feet per second and to deliver it at a certain point to be 
used for water power. 

This matter has been gone over repeatedly in the hearings before 
irrigation committees of both the House and the Senate, and it was 
proved conclusively that the Government was wise in utilizing exist- 
ing canals, and paid simply the value which they would have been 
compelled to pay in the construction of its own canals. 

As to the Moore Bros, water-power rights, it is very clear that a 
very advantageous arrangement w T as made, for the Government's 
expenditures on this canal did not exceed $90,000, and it is claimed 
by the critics of Secretary Hitchcock that the water carried in this 
ditch belonging to the Moore Bros, and constituting one-third of the 
entire flow, amounts to 1,000 horsepower, worth $400,000. If this is 
true, then the remaining two-thirds of the flow of this canal is worth 
$800,000, and the Secretary seems to have entered into a very favor- 
able negotiation there which, as the result of an expenditure of 
$90,000, he has secured horsepower worth $800,000. It is probable, 
however, that the value of this horsepower partakes of the exagger- 
ation which has characterized the critics of this project. 

The reclamation of swamp lands simply means that in drawing off 
the water from the lake a large amount of fertile land is left which will 
thus require irrigation. This land was, by the act of the legislatures 
of the States of Oregon and of California, expressly ceded to the United 
States Government as a part of this project, and Congress, by the 
act of February 9, 1905, ratified these cessions and authorized in 
express terms the Secretary of the Interior — 

In carrying out any irrigation project which may be undertaken by him under 
the terms and conditions of the national reclamation act, and which may involve 
the changing of the levels of lower or little Klamath Lake, Tule and Rhett Lakes 
and Goose Lake, and any river or other body of water connected therewith in the 



oi SRU2L 0F CONGRESS 



20 




029 826 170 4 



States of Oregon and California, to raise or lower the level of the said lakes as may be 
necessary, and to dispose of any lands which may come into the possession of the 
United States as a result thereof by cession of any State or otherwise under the terms 
and conditions of the national reclamation act. 



CONCLUSIONS. 

In. conclusion, the committee testifies to the general excellence of 
the work and of the results attained. In this report it has given a 
disproportionately large amount of attention to relatively small 
matters, since these appear to involve the question of the proper exer- 
cise of the executive discretion lodged in the Secretary of the Interior. 
A careful analysis of these criticisms shows that Secretary Hitchcock, 
acting with full personal knowledge, and directing efforts through his 
subordinates, initiated procedures in accordance with the letter and 
spirit of the law, and laid the foundations for works of national 
importance, whose benefits, already apparent in the creation of homes, 
will endure throughout succeeding generations. The committee has 
found, as anticipated, that in accordance with the growth and 
development it will be necessary to secure certain modifications or 
improvements of the original reclamation act and has already taken 
such steps as may bring about such modification. 

o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRES 



029 826 170 4 # 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




029 826 170 4 # 



Hollinger Corp. 
P H8.5 



